Perry4Law
Law Firm is occasionally consulted for online gaming,
online gambling, online card games, online games, online lotteries,
etc related legal issues. We have extended our legal expertise to
many national and international clients who have complied with our
engagement
terms. However, some unscrupulous individuals and
companies have tried to steal our copyrighted terms and conditions,
privacy policy, disclaimer, etc (legal documents) in the past. We
have been ignoring these things in the past but from now onwards we
have decided to take these copyright and cyber law violations
seriously.

We have been sending
legal notices and DMCA complaints to such individuals, companies and
hosting service providers who are party to such copyright
infringement and cyber law violations whether by design or
unintentionally. The idea is to protect our copyrighted legal
documents and to safeguard our own financial interests.

Now we have also decided
to make a public database of such violators so that information in
this regard can be collected at a single
place. Our first post in this regard is regarding the
website of Pokernation that is carrying our
copyrighted legal documents without our approval and without
complying with our engagement terms. The same has been done in
association with Fortuity Gaming Solutions Pvt Ltd. We have served
DMCA complaint and legal notices to PokerNation, Fortuity Gaming
Solutions Pvt Ltd and their Directors/principal officers. We have
also intimated them through our Twitter account at @ptlbindia.
You can see these tweets at here1
and here2.
Further legal actions, if required, would also be taken against the
guilty person/company.

We would update our
readers about this copyright violation episode by Pokernation and
Fortuity from time to time. Any individual or company interested in
seeking our legal assistance may contact us in this regard and
establish a client
attorney relationship.

Update
1:Till
23-05-2016 we have not received any response from PokerNation,
Fortuity Gaming Solutions Pvt Ltd and their Directors/principal
officers and the web hosting service provider Microsoft Corporation.

Saturday, November 21, 2015

E-surveillance is not new in United States and U.S.
is one of the most endemic e-surveillance states of the world. U.S.
and its agencies are targeting not only U.S. citizens but citizens of
the whole world. In fact, James Clapper has confirmed
that NSA has been targeting foreign citizens for surveillance.
Telecom giant Vodafone has revealed existence of secret
wires for government surveillance around the world,
including
India.

Google along with other companies has been fighting
against e-surveillance activities of U.S. agencies. In the past,
FBI’s National
Security Letters (NSLs) with gag orders were declared
unconstitutional by a U.S. District Judge. However, this order
was subsequently narrowed
down by the Judge and allowed the U.S. Department of Justice to
appeal the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Ninth
Circuit.

Now Google is once again taking a stand to protect
Civil Liberties in
Cyberspace by protesting against the proposal to widen the powers
of FBI search warrants. Google has openly conveyed its dissent
for the proposed US Justice Department proposal to expand federal
powers to search and seize digital data, warning that the changes
would open the door to US “government hacking of any facility” in
the world. Google has submitted
(PDF) to the Washington committee that is considering the proposed
changes that increasing the FBI’s powers set out in search warrants
would raise “monumental and highly complex constitutional, legal
and geopolitical concerns that should be left to Congress to decide”.

Google may be using soft language but the reality is
that U.S. and its agencies are already indulging in world
wide e-surveillance in clear violation of international
laws and state’s sovereignty. The revelations by Edward
Snowden have proved this point well beyond any sort of doubt.
Radio waves and
Malware have also been used by NSA for world wide e-surveillance.
Malware like FinFisher
are increasingly being used for global electronic spying,
e-surveillance and eavesdropping. Further, GCHQ and NSA have
intercepted and stored webcam
images of millions of innocent Internet users. Kaspersky has also
revealed
hardware based stealth spyware used by U.S. intelligence agencies.

Reacting to these sorts of e-surveillance activities
by U.S. agencies, Brazil and the European Union recently
announced plans to lay a $185 million undersea fiber-optic
communications cable between them to thwart U.S. surveillance.
Surprisingly, Google is also building
the Brazil-US fiber optic cable that seems to be a contrary stand of
Brazil. However, it is obvious that NSA’s/U.S. agencies
surveillance may cause breakup
of Internet if not checked immediately.

As far as FBI’s enhanced search powers are
concerned, Google’s main concern is that FBI agents would be able
to carry out covert raids on servers no matter where they were
situated, giving the US government unfettered global access to vast
amounts of private information. In particular, Google is not happy
with the FBI’s desire to “remotely” search computers that have
concealed their location either through encryption or by obscuring
their IP addresses using anonymity services such as Tor.
Surprisingly, U.S. agencies consider anything that is encrypted and
anonymous as a potential threat and a fit case to exercise their
jurisdiction. This is irrespective of the fact that such encrypted
communication may have originated outside the jurisdictions of U.S.
over which neither U.S. nor its agencies have any powers and
jurisdiction to exercise.

On the other hand, U.S. Justice Department is
calling for the scope of warrants to be widened so that FBI agents
can search property even if the computers are located outside the
concerned judge’s jurisdiction. The FBI argues that this new power
would be essential in investigations where suspects have concealed
the location of their computer networks. This is a genuine concern of
FBI but encrypted and anonymous services are also used by law abiding
and privacy loving people as well. Further, exercising extra
territorial jurisdiction over foreign citizens has serious
international laws concerns as well.

The Justice Department has also tried to assuage
anxieties about the proposed amendment. In its comment
(PDF) to the committee, DoJ officials say that federal agents would
only request the new type of warrants where there was “probable
cause to search for or seize evidence, fruits, or instrumentalities
of crime”. But civil liberties and legal groups remain unconvinced,
insisting that the language is so vaguely worded that it would have
draconian and global implications. In its submission
(PDF), the American Civil Liberties Union said that the proposed
changes could violate the fourth amendment of the US constitution,
which bans unreasonable searches and seizures.

It would be interesting to know how Congress would
resolve these conflicting claims. But one thing is for sure. We at
CECSRDI
believe that there must be a balance
between civil liberties protection and national security requirements
and giving primacy to one over another would only be
counterproductive and a bad policy decision.

It has been reported by media reports that the HDFC
Bank has hired services of private players for Forensics and Legal
Audit of its affairs. At Perry4Law
and Perry4Law’s
Techno Legal Base (PTLB) we strongly believe that although
this may be good intended yet it may bring “Unforeseen Legal
Challenges”.

As the allegations against these Banks are serious
and Criminal in nature, there is numerous Data of Evidence that must
be “Kept Intact” by these Banks. If these Data, including Digital
and Electronic Data, Changes, Access or Manipulated, it may “Draw
an Adverse Inference” by the Investigating Authorities and Courts
against these Banks. It may also amount to “Destruction of
Evidence” by these Banks hence further Offence(s).

Although HDFC has declared that this Forensics and
Legal Audit Process has been initiated without prejudice to the
authentication of the video recordings or electronic data yet this is
stand is difficult to prove in a Court of Law.

Actually it is the fault of the Investigating
Agencies and Indian Government that have failed to take appropriate
and immediate action in this regard. If the Investigation Agencies
had acted “Expeditiously”, Crucial Digital Evidence would have
already been placed “On Hold”.

In e-discovery and OCR procedure, the role of a
technology
lawyers and ICT
law firm is very important. No organisation or individual
engaged in the e-discovery or ODR process can afford to engage in a
limitless exercise. We at Perry4Law and PTLB believe that any
e-discovery and OCR exercise must be primarily guided by relevancy,
proper chain of custody and admissibility criteria in all
circumstances. This is more so when litigation is an option.

In e-discovery and OCR procedure,
data is identified as potentially relevant by lawyers/law firm and
placed on legal hold. Evidence is then extracted and analysed using
legally
acceptable cyber forensic procedures.
This includes the stages of identification, preservation, collection,
processing, review and production.

These
issue must be properly managed as per the techno legal requirements
existing in India otherwise the adduced information, documents and
evidence may not be relevant and admissible in the court of law.

Optical
character recognition (OCR) is one of the most important stages of
e-discovery
or cyber
forensics process. OCR is the process where images of
handwritten, typewritten or printed text are converted into
machine-encoded text using the mechanical or electronic conversion.

The main purpose of OCR is to digitise printed texts
so that they can be electronically searched, stored more compactly,
displayed on-line through virtual
data rooms, and used in machine processes such as machine
translation, text-to-speech and text mining. OCR is also very
important for presenting and defending claims and obligations in
civil and criminal proceedings.

However, there are certain techno legal issues that
must be taken care of while engaging in the OCR activities. If these
techno legal issues are not followed properly, the end OCR product
may not be admissible in a court of law or other investigation.

Further, only relevant material must be converted
into legally admissible electronic records, including OCR. A proper
chain of custody must be maintained at all stages of converting
printed and other text documents into digital documents and OCR.

There is no sense in converting the entire paper
based document s in to electronic format as not all electronic
versions would be relevant to the case or investigation. Even lesser
electronic records and OCR would be held admissible in a court of
law.

According to Perry4Law
and Perry4Law’s
Techno Legal Base (PTLB) the most important attribute while
engaging in the OCR exercise meant for litigation purposes is to
first ascertain the relevant documents and then convert them into
digital format keeping in mind the admissibility criteria while
following proper chain of custody.

It is obvious that e-discovery challenges in India
are going to be tough and all e-discovery stakeholders must be well
equipped to deal with the same. Perry4Law
and Perry4Law Techno Legal Base (PTLB)
wish all the best to all e-discovery stakeholders in India and
abroad.

Thursday, March 15, 2012

Cloud computing is increasingly seen as a viable business opportunity in India. However, there are many problems associated with cloud computing in India as well. For example we have no dedicated legal framework for cloud computing in India. In fact, cloud computing in India is legally risky.

The legal sector is also related to cloud computing in another manner. Cloud computing often involves regulatory issues pertaining to litigations and court cases. This is more so where electronic discovery (e-discovery) pertaining to cloud computing is involved. For instance, e-discovery for social media would be frequently undertaken in future, including in India. Similarly, virtual data rooms for legal compliances in India and elsewhere would be frequently used in future. These virtual data rooms may be based upon cloud computing technology.

Perry4Law and PTLB suggest that both e-discovery and cloud computing need to have strong and effective legal frameworks. Te sooner it is done the better it would be for the e-discovery and cloud computing industry of India.